CNCC resin anchor scheme (split from "Car Pot anchors" topic)

[Simon Wilson]

Car Pot used to be a popular cave and it's surprising that cavers have not done anything about the anchors. They are your anchors and you should maintain the anchors in caves in the same way that you maintain any other item of your caving equipment. What are you doing to maintain your anchors?

If cavers don't engage with the anchor replacement programme then caves like Car Pot will not get resin anchors. Caves will only get resin anchors if people report defective anchors, request resin anchor installations, volunteer to get involved in the installation or assist the programme in any of the other ways.

Since I have been involved, the CNCC has only received one report of a loose anchor. I have spent most of my caving time over the past year inspecting anchors and I feel the need to do it because cavers are not reporting. We are overwhelmed with the amount of work needed and are only managing to scratch the surface. By far the biggest and the most urgent need of the programme is information.

One example of a defective anchor which has not been reported is the one I discovered recently at Dr Bannister's. That anchor was described recently as, "the single most used anchor in the Dales" yet it is loose, must have been loose for a long time and has not been reported as being loose. I have found a considerable number of defective anchors in many other caves, some of which are seriously dangerous.

The situation is worse than cavers just not engaging: there are a greater number of cavers actively undermining the work of the anchor replacement programme than the number engaged in the programme. There have been many instances of cavers saying that anchors are OK when they are not for a variety of reasons which undermines the programme in several ways. And there are cavers who install non-approved anchors which creates extra work for the anchor replacement programme because the non-approved anchors have to be removed which, depending on the type of anchor, can take much more time and effort than installing a resin anchor.

If you do nothing to maintain your caving gear then don't expect somebody else to do it for you and please don't complain.

 

[MJenkinson]

And it's not hard to do either...

http://cncc.org.uk/caving/report/anchor.php

Regards
Matt

 

[Alex]

Who was complaining as far as we knew this was the only way to report an anchor defect...

I don't think drawing parrells to your kit and anchors works. The reason is most people think the anchors belong to whoever placed them and are not yours and therefor not yours to look after/replace. I think this is the main mentality. You say cavers should do something about it but I only know how to place through bolts and that is not CNCC approved and will need replacing again in 5 years anyway. Resin anchors can only be done by a specialist few after a long training course (also requires expensive kit). So not sure what you expect us to do as you go on to say any anchors we place causes you more work down the line.

But I do broadly agree on the fact that there more reporting but I think its awareness of the mechanism that is the problem as I did not even think there was a mechanism other than posting on here to report defective anchors (or more likely I had forgotten), or writing the anchors are bad in the trip report. Perhaps a permanent link here to CNCC anchor defects (on this website) might help as well as a link to the descriptions of the caves etc. Is this just not for CNCC anchors though?

I am also one of the cavers who reported some anchors where okay (as in useable, but not ideal) and got a verbal beating from Simon in PMs and being accused of undermining the CNCC anchor scheme so I thought F*** em for a while and kept my mouth shut. I did not realise that in order for the anchor to be okay it has to be CNCC anchor, so in which case should we report every cave without CNCC anchors? I prefer to just report the ones that are going to kill someone or are simply just not useable.

In summary:

Our problems are:

How do we know if the anchor is not up to CNCC standards, when we feel its safe to use, you guys have done the training course and have the tools to test them. I can identify loose and ones that simply do not work, but do you want me to report every one that is not a CNCC anchor too (genuine question?)

Two most people are not aware of a mechanism to report so I think a permanent link on here will fix this.

Three please don't start accusing people of undermining the process, if you want our cooperation. I was genuinely only trying to help at the time and had even volunteered to help down a certain cave! But those messages and the one above accusing me and others does not help.

I doubt anyone is trying to deliberately undermine it, if they don't know your plans they will try to fix it themselves.

 

[MJenkinson]

I think if people reported all the dodgy anchors ("dodgy" as far as their experience allows them to assess...which for me is, is it still in the wall, does it wobble a lot ha!) in Dales / northern caves, then it shouldn't matter if its a CNCC anchor or not.

The CNCC will either say "its not ours" - fair enough, or if enough comments come in they might say "obviously needs a looking at, is it worth bolting, would it be acceptable to p-bolt it etc).

Not sure I agree with the tone of some of the comments above, but certainly it can't be a bad thing for cavers to have a quick and easy way to report possibly dodgy anchors.  I think there are some guidelines regarding mm of movement / angle of rotation or something.

A much nicer way for the above to have bee carried out would have been "not sure about Car Pot, but as a heads up if you see any other possibly dodgy bolts in northern caves you can report them via the CNCC".

I am in no way speaking for the CNCC by the way - they may completely disagree with all the above and only ever want to hear about the bolts they placed, but the site reads that they will at least circulate info about dodgy gear.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Have a read of http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=equipment_techniques:anchor_scheme and linked pages.  The scheme stopped routine inspection work almost 10 years ago and is reliant upon users carrying out their own pre-use inspection, namely:

Twist the anchor using the fingers, while observing any movement. Slight flexing or rotational movement (+/-1mm) of the anchor is acceptable.

The following points should be checked before using or loading the anchors:

    Looseness or fractures of the rock in which the anchor is placed.
    Grooves or abrasion inside the curvature of the anchor. i.e. the inside contact area of the anchor.
    Obvious damage to the anchor or placement from rock fall.
    Excessive rotation of the resin within the drilled hole.
    Rotation of the anchor within the resin.
    Fracturing of the rock within 20cm of the anchor placement.
    Egress of the anchor from the resin or the resin from the drilled hole.

and reporting if they have concerns.

 

[Simon Wilson]

When I used the word "engage" I meant it to mean completely embrace the programme, be part of it, be involved, find out about it, put the effort in, and mostly, feel that you own it.

I don't think drawing parrells to your kit and anchors works. The reason is most people think the anchors belong to whoever placed them and are not yours and therefor not yours to look after/replace. I think this is the main mentality.

Yes, but who placed the approved anchors? The BCA. The BCA own the anchors and if you're a member of the BCA you own the anchors.

You say cavers should do something about it but I only know how to place through bolts and that is not CNCC approved and will need replacing again in 5 years anyway.

I can only respectfully ask people to please do not place unapproved anchors and throughbolts are the worst thing you could place. I have not yet devised a way of removing throughbolts. The last time I dealt with one, the end of the bolt have been rivetted over to stop the hanger being removed. I chiselled off the bolt and left the rest in the hole. The problem with that is that the site is destroyed and so a resin anchor can't be placed in the same place.

So not sure what you expect us to as you go on to say any anchors we place causes you more work down the line.

Again I can only respectfully request that people engage with the anchor programme in spirit and stop placing unapproved anchors. For exploration I ask people to only place an anchor after very careful consideration and only place something that can be removed. At the moment it appears to me that the best option is to use self-tapping bolts.

But I do broadly agree on the fact that there more reporting but I think its awareness of the mechanism that is the problem as I did not even think there was a mechanism other than posting on here to report defective anchors (or more likely I had forgotten), or writing the anchors are bad in the trip report. Perhaps a permanent link here to CNCC anchor defects (on this website) might help as well as a link to the descriptions of the caves etc.

I think it is the case that the message needs to be got across better. The CNCC are the body that coordinates resin anchor placement in the North and that is where people need to go to find out about the anchor programme. I really would like to see cavers  'engage',  and find out about it. I ask people to be more proactive, don't take anchors for granted, don't assume that they will just happen and  that 'other' people will do it. Please, I am asking people to have a change of mindset. They are your anchors and just as much part of your caving gear as your sit harness.

I am also one of the cavers who reported some anchors where okay (as in useable, but not ideal) and got a verbal beating from Simon in PMs and being accused of undermining the CNCC anchor scheme so I thought F*** em for a while and kept my mouth shut.

Alex, you did not get a "verbal beating";  you got much the same as I am saying here which is a respectful request to take more responsibility, get to understand the anchor programme and why we have it and then 'engage' with it.
Perhaps you don't agree with me but I think that if a caver says on the main UK caving forum that the anchors in a cave are 'okay' and if someone then goes down that cave and finds only Spits then the person who said they are okay is undermining the work of the anchor programme. That is only my opinion. I am not the 'bolt police' and if I started acting in a way that came across as me trying to be some sort of authority then I feel sure some people would be encouraged to do exactly the opposite of what I wanted.

Our problems are:

How do we know if the anchor is not up to CNCC standards, when we feel its safe to use, you guys have done the training course and have the tools to test them. I can identify loose and ones that simply do not work, but do you want me to report every one that is not a CNCC anchor too (genuine question?)

Actually we don't have any tools to test them. We do not have the capability and do not do any testing of anchors in caves. The present policy is for you to do the testing of the anchors.
The CNCC defect reporting form asks for you to report any defective anchor. The way I read it is that we are all being asked to report any defect so if it is a non-approved anchor it is defective and if it has any movement whatsoever it is defective.

Two most people are not aware of a mechanism to report so I think a permanent link on here will fix this.

Please engage and find out.

Three please don't start accusing people of undermining the process, if you want our cooperation. I was genuinely only trying to help at the time and had even volunteered to help down a certain cave! But those messages and the one above accusing me and others does not help.

I doubt anyone is trying to deliberately undermine it, if they don't know your plans they will try to fix it themselves.

Again please 'engage' and start seeing the CNCC as 'us' rather than 'them'.

 

[traff]

When I tried to report a missing anchor some years ago the process wasn't pleasant. I was even argued with as to whether the hanger existed despite it being on the CNCC rigging guide.

It left one thinking why bother. I certainly didn't feel 'engaged'.

 

[alastairgott]

warning, I'm going to Armchair it here, and suggest something which may be a lot of hassle to sort.

Maybe you could get a number for people to text to and report a defective anchor (maybe with CNCC at the top of the Message, then the name of the cave, the rope length in the guide followed by B [for bolt] and the number of the amount of bolts down that rope you are)

just an idea? https://www.textlocal.com/product/long-numbers/

 

[Simon Wilson]

warning, I'm going to Armchair it here, and suggest something which may be a lot of hassle to sort.

Maybe you could get a number for people to text to and report a defective anchor (maybe with CNCC at the top of the Message, then the name of the cave, the rope length in the guide followed by B [for bolt] and the number of the amount of bolts down that rope you are)

just an idea? https://www.textlocal.com/product/long-numbers/

There is a simple and effective system in place and I trust that using it will be a pleasant process.

http://cncc.org.uk/caving/report/anchor.php

Happy New Year to everybody with love from Simon.

 

[Roger W]

That looks straightforward and clear enough.

 

[Alex]

Yeh I think I would prefer the link rather than having to remember a text command.

Points well made Simon, I will try to engage.

 

[ianball11]

+/-1mm rotational movement = Defective?

 

[topcat]

The CNCC defect reporting form asks for you to report any defective anchor. The way I read it is that we are all being asked to report any defect so if it is a non-approved anchor it is defective and if it has any movement whatsoever it is defective.

Simon, did you really mean to write this?  Everything that isn't a CNCC approved is defective?  As well as the approved anchors that have worked loose and those ill-placed?  Doesn't leave us much to rig off !!

With this attitude I predict there will come a time when your insurance won't cover you for naturals and other anchors...............even those perfectly good drop-ins  [they do exist you know, within their limited life span].

 

[Bob Mehew]

+/-1mm rotational movement = Defective?

There is an ongoing debate within BCA's E&T Committee whether this criterion is necessary.  The argument accepted way back when for the +/-1mm was that some people were reporting looseness because they mistook movement in their fingers for movement in the anchor.  When one used a rigid tool against a fixed mark to look for movement, then it is more obvious but it was felt we could not ask people to do this (KISS).  The argument against using +/-1mm is any movement is wrong.

The safety argument for is that for resin (also called glue in) anchors the strength is not just due to chemical bonds, there is also mechanical interference to over come (notably between resin and the rough shaped hole drilled by a SDS drill).  On extraction even after the chemical bond has been broken one is still required to use forces well in excess of the anchor standard to pull the resin anchor out.  Anecdotal experience has not indicated any case where a resin anchor has come out with no real force.  The safety argument against is that this does not necessarily apply to other anchors and perhaps the user may not recognise the difference (KISS again).

For those of you that read the last but one Descent you may recall the advice was changed to what was considered to be clearer, namely:

Before use check each anchor:
?            That there are no clear signs of wear or damage to the anchor
?            That there is no looseness or fracturing of the rock within 20cm of the anchor
?            That the anchor has no apparent movement with respect to the resin in any direction (less than 1mm in twist, side to side or in / out)
?            That the resin has no movement with respect to the rock (twist, side to side or in / out).

I trust that helps clarify the situation.

 

[Alex]

So just to be clear yep it looks like we do need to report every none CNCC anchor then?

So would it be easier to say:

All anchors in Quaking pot,
All anchors in P5
All anchors in Pasture gill
All anchors in Strans Gill
All anchors in Car pot
All anchors in Langstroth
A pitch into the upper streamway series of Long drop (up the climb from top of the last hang on the last pitch).
...

Would it not be better to report the ones where the anchors are already un-useable such as Car to get a prioritised list. Hence why saying "okay for now" should be valid as there are more pressing places such as Car that need attention first.

 

[ianball11]

Thank you Bob 

 

[Andrew Wilson]

Alex, you did not get a "verbal beating";  you got much the same as I am saying here which is a respectful request to take more responsibility, get to understand the anchor programme and why we have it and then 'engage' with it.
Perhaps you don't agree with me but I think that if a caver says on the main UK caving forum that the anchors in a cave are 'okay' and if someone then goes down that cave and finds only Spits then the person who said they are okay is undermining the work of the anchor programme.

Hi, as a relatively new caver I find some of this statement a little confusing. To me there is a clear distinction between the CNCC bolted caves, and all other caves. I would hope that most people would be aware of this difference, and the effort that goes into bolting and maintaining the CNCC routes is great and benefits us all. But this only applies to a small proportion of the caves, and many more caves are perfectly well bolted with spits and other types of bolt.
We were down Growling Hole yesterday and if someone were to ask on here I would say the anchors were very good. The main y-hangs on the fault pitch were new-ish spits (2013 I think?). I have no intention of undermining the efforts of the CNCC and don't see how this would. As I say above, I would expect folk to know that this particular cave did not contain CNCC placed p-bolts.

I don't think there is any harm in people commenting on the non-CNCC stuff, it is bound to be more suspect so any beta on its condition is welcome in my view.
I have only come across 2 loose p-bolts, and found that both had already been reported and acknowledged on here (bull pot and tatham). I will continue to report anything else I find in the future.

Cheers

Andrew

 

[Alex]

Yeh I still don't agree with Simon on that point. Yes it may be a goal to replace all anchors with CNCC anchors but until then we still need to be able to rate the existing stuff and to the annoyance of Simon maintain the existing stuff until CNCC can get round to it. As like Simon says the CNCC have their plate full, so we can't just not do a lot of these caves hoping they may get round to it. Furthermore, do CNCC have any qualified resin anchor peeps who fit down these harder and more challenging caves, is it even possible for them to resin anchor places like Growling or harder places such as Strans gill? For example I recall Simon saying the squeeze through Bourio falls in Lancliffe was impossible when in-fact it was do-able just very difficult, especially on the return.

As for Growling the bolts might be okay to use in Growing but the walls arnt! A huge chunck fell off near the top as I leaned back to position my self to rig the main Y-hang 7m down. (thankfully as I was rigging so no-one was below). CNCC anchored or not that big pitch in there is rather sketchy!

I do think you are right it has been re-bolted recently.

 

[ianball11]

Time to d a bolting course Alex?

 

[Simon Wilson]

There is a problem in that there is a generation of cavers who are too young to understand the issue with Spits. Back in the day before resin anchors there were some very serious accidents and near misses with Spits and it was sheer good luck that there was not a fatality. In my opinion anybody who installs a Spit in any cave in the Dales simply to get down a known cave is acting in a selfish, irresponsible and vandalistic way. I'm not going to argue about it because I got totally sick of arguing about thirty years ago.

As previously stated, the highest priority for resin anchors are those places that pose the greatest danger. And therefore, obviously, caves with Spits must be at the top of the list.

Alex, please find out the facts.

The CNCC do not install anchors. The anchors are being installed by volunteer cavers with no support whatsoever from the CNCC. We want to comply with the BCA anchor policy and to do that we ask the CNCC to approve the installations. They are not CNCC anchors, they are not installed by the CNCC and not paid for by the CNCC they are simply approved by the CNCC.

There has always been a shortage of volunteers who are capable of getting down the harder caves. That is why many of the caves in need of anchors are the hardest ones. The cavers who go down the hardest caves tend to be the younger cavers. The cavers who install resin anchors tend to be the more experienced, more committed and more responsible cavers. It is because of the commitment of those older cavers that some of those younger cavers have been able to cave in safety and possibly without a fatality.

I have never said that the squeeze in Boireau Falls Chamber is impossible. What I said was that when I attempted it on sight last year with the intention of installing resin anchors, and purely for that purpose, I did not manage it. I have, however, been to the bottom of all the other tight caves that have been mentioned both on ladders before the introduction of SRT and on rope after that.